Opinion
November 5, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.).
Charged with robbing five Bronx commercial establishments over a period of six weeks, overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt was provided by descriptions of his appearance, clothing, modus operandi, and gun, which matched the gun in his possession when he was arrested, as well as line-up identifications by witnesses to each robbery. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of defendant's application after the defense had rested and six days after he testified, to retake the stand in order to offer evidence of an alleged inheritance and settlement of a lawsuit that purportedly negated a motive to steal (People v Washington, 71 N.Y.2d 916). Inasmuch as defendant did not move for post-judgment relief, pursuant to CPL 440.10, a reviewable record of his claim of ineffectiveness of trial representation is not presented (People v Brown, 45 N.Y.2d 852). On the state of the existing record, it appears that counsel made a viable argument of misidentification based on the trial evidence, and it cannot be said that defendant was deprived of meaningful representation (People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.